Doug Griffiths questions the economic value of condo dwellers

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Right, but Blakeman and GP_Matt make it sound like the province collects this, and then distributes it based on the length of roads in the area. Is that correct?

No, I don't think so. The linear tax is just a type of property assessment, and then the taxes are levied the same as regular property taxes. The municipality gets some, and the province gets some for education.

How roads are funded is a separate issue.

I definitely have a huge issue with rural Alberta complaining it's not getting a fair shake. Provincial services cost way more to deliver in rural areas, and farmland pays less taxes. They have smaller, more expensive per capita schools and hospitals, and longer, more expensive per capita infrastructure (roads, etc). They also pay less tax per $ of fair market value.

The cities subsidize rural Albera. It would be nice if they had the good graces not to complain about it.

[nik-]

I actually keep two rural residents chained up in my condo.

[Jacks]

This batch of PC's have the political instincts of a cantaloupe.

Allison is probably seething right now.

[onetwo_threefour]

Yo dawg, I heard you like leeches, so I'm leeching off a rural leeching urban leech while I leech.

[Nage Waza]

Not sure I understand. If I pay more in taxes, I don't get more back as a result. Although I think there should be something I get as a return.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jacks

This batch of PC's have the political instincts of a cantaloupe.

Cantaloupes don't say stuff this stupid.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Jacks

This batch of PC's have the political instincts of a cantaloupe.

Allison is probably seething right now.

I think we can find fruitloops in all parties.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Not sure I understand. If I pay more in taxes, I don't get more back as a result. Although I think there should be something I get as a return.

Progressive taxation (or even a flat tax) results in the rich subsidizing the poor. Few people will argue that they shouldn't, the question is to what extent they should. That is outside the scope of this issue.

The seperate issue at play here is that urban subsidizes rural at the same wealth level. It is a lifestyle subsidy. GP_Matt's Grande Prairie example illustrates the point perfectly.

Cities are the economic drivers of the province. They also need certain things to stay prosperous. To underfund them is to jeopardize the health of the province's golden geese.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Progressive taxation (or even a flat tax) results in the rich subsidizing the poor. Few people will argue that they shouldn't, the question is to what extent they should. That is outside the scope of this issue.

The seperate issue at play here is that urban subsidizes rural at the same wealth level. It is a lifestyle subsidy. GP_Matt's Grande Prairie example illustrates the point perfectly.

Cities are the economic drivers of the province. They also need certain things to stay prosperous. To underfund them is to jeopardize the health of the province's golden geese.

If I have a 500k house, I pay nearly 10x more property tax than someone who owns 500k worth of farmland. And it's much more efficient to deliver services to me in a city where I can share roads/hospitals/schools with a huge number of other people than it is in a rural area.

I don't have an issue with taxation by assessment, it's reasonable for the well off to pay more. I have an issue with taxation by assessment where one type of industry/lifestyle pays hugely less than everyone else.

[Northendzone]

even with the snowfall last night, i understand it took folks from airdrie only 10 minutes to get from thier homes to their offices in Bankers Hall

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If I have a 500k house, I pay nearly 10x more property tax than someone who owns 500k worth of farmland. And it's much more efficient to deliver services to me in a city where I can share roads/hospitals/schools with a huge number of other people than it is in a rural area.

I don't have an issue with taxation by assessment, it's reasonable for the well off to pay more. I have an issue with taxation by assessment where one type of industry/lifestyle pays hugely less than everyone else.

You may not be aware, but commercial and industrial rates are a lot higher than residential. In Calgary the rate is ~ 0.6% for residential and ~ 1.6% for everything else.

Everything else I agree with though.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

You may not be aware, but commercial and industrial rates are a lot higher than residential. In Calgary the rate is ~ 0.6% for residential and ~ 1.6% for everything else.

I don't see how this point relates to the quoted point... doesn't everyone who is working contribute to the "everything else"?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

You may not be aware, but commercial and industrial rates are a lot higher than residential. In Calgary the rate is ~ 0.6% for residential and ~ 1.6% for everything else.

Everything else I agree with though.

I did know that, and think it makes my point more relevant. The only reason I didn't get into it is because it varies by municipality, and I'm mainly talking about the provincial portion.

If "non-farming" industries also pay a higher rate in addition to their higher assessment, that makes the situation even more unfair to everyone who isn't a farmer. As Seb mentioned, we all pay those taxes through our employers and the retailers we shop at.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't see how this point relates to the quoted point... doesn't everyone who is working contribute to the "everything else"?

I was commenting on his point that it wasn't fair for one type of industry to pay less.

I have a friend who owns a huge chunk of land nearby in the county who pays less than $100 a year in property taxes. The land is treed with no permanent buildings, but it still seems crazy low.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

You may not be aware, but commercial and industrial rates are a lot higher than residential. In Calgary the rate is ~ 0.6% for residential and ~ 1.6% for everything else.

Many years ago I was told this was because businesses can expense their property taxes while homeowners pay with after tax dollars. Same reason why, at the time, apartment buildings were taxed 30% more. This got changed because some inner city aldermen pointed out that the extra tax didn't get absorbed by the landlords, it got passed on to the renters, and lobbied to get it changed. In Calgary if you add in the business tax, commercial properties pay a lot more than that.

If farmland were taxed at market value, you would see food prices go up, farmers go bankrupt, or farmland near the cities all turn into acreages. Likely all of the above.

[Kavvy]

Municipal Affairs Minister

Really? Bad comment from a guy that has this job.

[GGG]

I think his comment reflects an attitude that does exist amoungst rural residents. There is a belief (making broad generalizations) that living the simple rural life is better than a city dweller. And that because there hard work produces something real be oil from the groud or food from the ground that it is more valualbe than the drawings produced in Calgary that make it possible to get oil from the ground. The city just freeloads of the country because that is where the resources actaully are.

So I believe Griffiths when he is saying that sentiment exists in rural alberta. It is a misinformed sentiment but one that exists. Then you here about a Billion dollars going to an LRT line and that is a lot of money until you break it down ber capita and realize that the 1 million bucks tossed at a small town project was more expensive per capita.

So I understand the attitidue but this misinformation shouldn't dictate policy.

[SebC]

Exactly, it's okay to point out that people might think that way, but if you do then you better also be ready to explain why they're wrong.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

If farmland were taxed at market value, you would see food prices go up, farmers go bankrupt, or farmland near the cities all turn into acreages. Likely all of the above.

This is demonstrably false. In 2008, property taxes paid be farmers in Alberta were 103 million. Total expenses were 9.565 billion. So property taxes were 1.07% of total expenses. If farmers can't afford to pay their fair share of property taxes, maybe we should have less farmers.

As to food prices going up, that argument can only be accepted from people who are opposed to quotas. If you are in favour of supply management, then you're not in favour of lower prices, and your argument is garbage. Getting rid of quotas would lower food prices much more than charging fair property taxes would raise them.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$departm...ILE/table6.pdf

edited to add: Farmers are also able to deduct property taxes off their income tax, so by that logic they should be paying more than residential, as compared to the current system where they pay much, much less

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

If farmland were taxed at market value, you would see food prices go up, farmers go bankrupt, or farmland near the cities all turn into acreages. Likely all of the above.

That already happens. Poor business owners almost always fail.

Farmers get lots of special financial assistance and most of them do quite well for themselves. I never realized this until I started doing farm loans in rural Alberta and I couldn't believe how little taxes they pay for the income they draw.